Apple's North Carolina solar, fuel cell plants will be largest of their kind

Apple's solar farm in North Carolina will be a 20-megawatt, 100-acre facility that is the largest end-user-owned onsite solar array in the country. It and a previously undisclosed fuel cell installation will power a data center that is the only in its class to achieve LEED Platinum certification.

More details on the company's forthcoming solar project were revealed in an update to the company's website on green initiatives and environmental impacts, along with a new Facilities Environmental Report. The updated report, first noticed by CNet, reveals that the company's data center in Maiden, N.C., is the largest in its class with LEED Platinum certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

"Our goal is to run the Maiden facility with high percentage renewable energy mix, and we have major projects under way to achieve this — including building the nation's largest end user-owned solar array and building the largest nonutility fuel cell installation in the United States," the site reads.

It also gives details on a new 5-megawatt fuel cell installation that is scheduled to open later this year. When it does, it will be the largest non-utility fuel cell installation operating anywhere in the country.

The fuel cell installation will be powered by 100 percent biogas, Apple revealed, and it will provide more than 40 million kWh of 24x7 baseload renewable energy annually.

Apple first announced plans to build its massive $1 billion server farm in Maiden in 2009. The facility opened last spring, and only months after, Apple's plans to build a solar farm on an adjacent property were revealed.

The Maiden data center helps to power Apple's online operations, including the iCloud umbrella of Web applications and services, and the iTunes Store that serves up applications, music, movies, books and more.

Apple's environmental website reveals that the company estimates 98 percent of its carbon emissions come from manufacturing, transportation, use and recycling of its products. Just 2 percent is estimated to come from its facilities.

The company also boasts that it has reduced carbon emissions on a number of its products, most notably the Apple TV set-top box. From 2007 to 2011, carbon emissions with the Apple TV were reduced by 90 percent. The iMac has also seen a 50 percent reduction from 1998 to 2011, while the Mac mini has dropped 52 percent.

Apple has also reduced the packaging associated with the iPhone by 42 percent from 2007 to 2011. That allows the company to ship 80 percent more boxes in each airline shipping container, saving one 747 flight for every 371,250 boxes Apple ships.

While I applaud their efforts, I don't understand why they decided to clear forested land for solar arrays when they have a huge, largely empty roof on top of their data center. They could have put a significant portion of their solar cells on that roof, cleared far less land, and made their building less of a heat radiator.

While I applaud their efforts, I don't understand why they decided to clear forested land for solar arrays when they have a huge, largely empty roof on top of their data center. They could have put a significant portion of their solar cells on that roof, cleared far less land, and made their building less of a heat radiator.

I am sure they are using they are using it as well, but it hardly makes a dent in comparison.

This really is huge. I am impressed. Surprised that if this was their plan they chose NC though. Biggest incentive there is cheap power.

While I applaud their efforts, I don't understand why they decided to clear forested land for solar arrays when they have a huge, largely empty roof on top of their data center. They could have put a significant portion of their solar cells on that roof, cleared far less land, and made their building less of a heat radiator.

And I don't understand why you're not using rags instead of toilet paper, so you can rinse them out and reuse them. As to the squirrels, Apple chartered LP gas-fueled buses to transport them to another woodlot and then paid them relocation assistance until they settled in.

While I applaud their efforts, I don't understand why they decided to clear forested land for solar arrays when they have a huge, largely empty roof on top of their data center. They could have put a significant portion of their solar cells on that roof, cleared far less land, and made their building less of a heat radiator.

Likely that would have been more expensive. It is unlikely that they will make any money on this as it is, compared to buying the juice from the local utility.

While I applaud their efforts, I don't understand why they decided to clear forested land for solar arrays when they have a huge, largely empty roof on top of their data center. They could have put a significant portion of their solar cells on that roof, cleared far less land, and made their building less of a heat radiator.

I think there are multiple questions here, and none of the answers are obvious (at least, not obvious to me):

1. Is it better to have the solar panels on the roof or not?

Right now, it's a white roof. White roofs are great at reflecting sunlight and heat. Cooling is a major issue for data centers. Solar panels are not white -- in fact they are intentionally black so as to absorb rather than reflect light. So solar panels on the roof might generate electricity, but they might also result in a hotter building that needs more electricity to cool. What's the right tradeoff? The fact that Apple hasn't put solar panels on the roof makes me think that the white roof is better. But who knows...

2. Is it better to replace trees with solar panels from a CO2 perspective?

Trees suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, so that's an argument in favor of trees. But solar panels generate electricity without creating CO2 (unlike fossil fuels), so that's an argument in favor of solar panels. Which of these two factors is bigger? In this case it's harder to infer the answer just by looking at Apple's actions, because the carbon-sink properties of trees probably are not internalized by Apple (whereas the light-reflecting property of a white roof is internalized by Apple). Given the relatively low efficiency of solar panels, my guess is that cutting down the trees is a net loser in terms of CO2. But that's just a guess.

Would be interesting to see some answers from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Likely that would have been more expensive. It is unlikely that they will make any money on this as it is, compared to buying the juice from the local utility.

They don't have to make money. They only have to not lose money, and then they are ahead of the game.
My folks had solar installed on the roof of their house; haven't had to pay an electric bill in two years. (other than the fixed "service supply" portion of their bill)